Problematic John Dehlin, a short list

[warbreaker]

Fair enough, warbreaker. I obviously don't post enough pictures on Facebook or check my notifications closely enough to notice these things. Can you remind me what happens when someone unlikes a picture? Does that generate a notification. I don't recall that it does.

No it does not. It’s only noticeable for those on Facebook a lot (as many are) because you will be notified that the picture was liked twice.

[dastardly stem]

It's a common defense, however unseemly it may be, in sexual harassment law, to raise the issue of who is likely to be harassed based on looks. Then put in the mind of the judge/jury that the alleged conduct probably didn't happen or wasn't that serious if the alleged victim is not one of the beautiful people. In this case, who me, John Dehlin, Mormon rock star, who could have any woman, would like a picture and have it be anything other than innocent? I'm the guy who is afraid of beer, golly shucks. I support all the good causes and love being good and go against the mean church, etc. How dare you accuse me?

That would certainly be my concern.

[Kishkumen]

No it does not. It’s only noticeable for those on Facebook a lot (as many are) because you will be notified that the picture was liked twice.

Liked twice by the same person? As in "John Dehlin liked your picture twice"? I only see the blue disk that has a thumbs up symbol in it and next to it the phrase: "X likes a picture you shared," or "X likes a post you shared." Then I have to click on that notification. So she sees the likes, she clicks through all of them individually, and if I understand correctly there were many photos he liked, and somewhere along the way of clicking every last one of these she notices that he must have liked some of them twice because she is taken back to the same pictures again by these notification links.

Meh. OK?

So, if this happened all at once, and say John Dehlin were quickly liking a bunch of her photographs, I can see him accidentally hitting some twice, thereby unliking them, and then reliking them because he did, in fact, intend to like them. In that case, I am not seeing really emphatic creepiness in the form of secret messages intended to draw her attention.

Bottom line, though: if the pics are actually "sexy pics," and I have no idea because I have not seen said pics, then John would be wise not to "like" pics such as these, regardless of what her point of view on this whole issue is.

I remember a close friend once recounted to me how he was at a park and walked by some ladies who were sunning out in public in very revealing bikinis. He happened to notice them, and he must have looked a moment too long because one of them commented to her friends, "What a creep!"

LOL!!!

How lovely.

I would tell you who this friend is, but I don't want anyone to think he is a monster that is undeserving of any stature in human civilization.

[dastardly stem]

Um, doxx her how exactly? I was unable to figure out who this person was based on information on this board, which I think would be the point of doxxing someone. Suddenly doxx has come to mean all kinds of new things that I don't recognize. Does doxx mean "talk about in a way that they would know you are talking about them but only other insiders would know too"?

Describing the doxxing seems to only play into it. It took me a minute or so.

I probably would not have talked about her looks, so we can agree that this is a little harsh. I don't know anything about any of these pics, and I don't know why a person would post their pics in lingerie on their personal Facebook page anyhow. Not that it is any of my business (although people are urgently trying to make it my business).

I take consiglieri to be saying, "I don't get what the big deal is here," and I join him in that. I don't either. I don't see this as a "pattern." I don't see this as harassment. I find it slightly odd and off-putting. It is certainly worth approaching John privately to tell him to cut it out. But I still don't see why this would be thought to be relevant to the larger discussion of John's (un)acceptability to the woke ex-Mo community.

It seems the event, as small as it seems, was a bit of a power play on his part. He figured he could get away with trying to flirt with a young lady in his community. When he asked for examples of men's behavior that makes women in the ex-Mormon world uncomfortable she simply responded, in the comments, apparently. Somehow in his mind this was a coordinated attack from many evil people, trying to ruin him

[Kishkumen]

Describing the doxxing seems to only play into it. It took me a minute or so.

Well, I am not expecting you to describe it by referring to information that you thing is proximate enough to the person to implicate yourself in it. Although, I have to say that I don't see anything that would lead me to the person thus "doxxed," making me question your sense of the meaning of the word altogether. In fact, my attitude is that I really don't want to know who this is because knowing would probably give me an unfair impression of the whole person. Let me remain ignorant of her identity and blissfully unaware of her involvement in this so I can come to an acquaintance with her, should that happen at any point in my uninteresting (by choice or just deserts) life, looking at a blank slate.

It seems the event, as small as it seems, was a bit of a power play on his part. He figured he could get away with trying to flirt with a young lady in his community. When he asked for examples of men's behavior that makes women in the ex-Mormon world uncomfortable she simply responded, in the comments, apparently. Somehow in his mind this was a coordinated attack from many evil people, trying to ruin him.

Yeah, because, guess what? He has had church spies following his activities and reporting to the Mopologists and the Committee for the Strengthening of the Membership. He has had Kate Kelly gang up with Kwaku, of all people, to air Rosebud's complaints on Kwaku's stupid show, followed by JP's stupid-ass run at this board. But, oh my, why should he ever think that anyone is ever out to get him!

Yeah, he doesn't handle the scrutiny well. Which fairly raises the question of why he persists if he can't stand the heat in his kitchen. Fair enough, indeed. But I really don't feel all that bad about what I have been told concerning this event, as though this were some hugely traumatic thing that really shows us who John is. It tells us exactly nothing new about who John is. It tells us that he overreacts with a kind of paranoia when he feels like people are attacking him. At worst, this lady was being an asshole by raising this issue in public instead of privately.

John overreacted. She overreacted. Power play?



Everybody needs to get over themselves. John is not some huge celebrity. He is a virtual nobody. Anyone who joins him in thinking he is a somebody needs to get real. If he were someone, he probably wouldn't waste his time liking some lady's photos on Facebook. He would have an assistant do it for him. Then we could talk about power plays.

https://youtu.be/o3vBvlT1i_k

[dastardly stem]

Well, I am not expecting you to describe it by referring to information that you thing is proximate enough to the person to implicate yourself in it. Although, I have to say that I don't see anything that would lead me to the person thus "doxxed," making me question your sense of the meaning of the word altogether. In fact, my attitude is that I really don't want to know who this is because knowing would probably give me an unfair impression of the whole person. Let me remain ignorant of her identity and blissfully unaware of her involvement in this so I can come to an acquaintance with her, should that happen at any point in my uninteresting (by choice or just deserts) life, looking at a blank slate.

I'm not putting the pieces together for you, is all I'm saying. It took me a minute to follow his clues and find her. I'm not sure it's doxxing per se anyway. It seems it'd have to include some sort of malicious intent.

Yeah, because, guess what? He has had church spies following his activities and reporting to the Mopologists and the Committee for the Strengthening of the Membership.

People had followed his public activities to gauge whether he believes or not? I don't think that's in the realm of attacking him. But I agree, there was some unseemly activity by church members there. I don't know why that justifies his over-reaction or his flirting, though.

He has had Kate Kelly gang up with Kwaku, of all people, to air Rosebud's complaints on Kwaku's stupid show, followed by JP's stupid-ass run at this board. But, oh my, why should he ever think that anyone is ever out to get him!

He's no victim. There was questionable activity. He should expect some sort of complaints if he has an affair, attacks a Church publicly, and seeks money from donors for helping people. You seem to be framing this all as he was just kindly sitting there minding his own business when out of nowhere people threw all sorts of stones and spears because he was so nice. No he's putting himself out there as someone who is saving people. He's publicly attacking an institution for it's treatment of it's adherents. He's admittedly silencing all of his dissenters. He's calling his critics names in response to criticism like "you've made me uncomfortable", painting them as crazy fools, evil conspirers, or jealous sychophants.

Yeah, he doesn't handle the scrutiny well. Which fairly raises the question of why he persists if he can't stand the heat in his kitchen. Fair enough, indeed. But I really don't feel all that bad about what I have been told concerning this event, as though this were some hugely traumatic thing that really shows us who John is. It tells us exactly nothing new about who John is. It tells us that he overreacts with a kind of paranoia when he feels like people are attacking him. At worst, this lady was being an asshole by raising this issue in public instead of privately.

She was not. He asked for this feedback and she gave it. That's not being an asshole. That's pointing out the exactly thing he was asking for.

John overreacted. She overreacted. Power play?



Everybody needs to get over themselves. John is not some huge celebrity. He is a virtual nobody. Anyone who joins him in thinking he is a somebody needs to get real. If he were someone, he probably wouldn't waste his time liking some lady's photos on Facebook. He would have an assistant do it for him. Then we could talk about power plays.

That's a deflection of course. I say power play in this way: John apparently attempted to flirt with this lady by liking her pictures and re-liking. He knows he's married and she is. That's a feeler to see how she responds, it seems. It went poorly for him when he realized she wasn't going to miss the opportunity to say how, as he requested, an ex-momon man mistreated an ex-Mormon woman. He flew off the handle because she did as he requested, apparently, trying to play victim, intimidate her, or other such things....it all comes off as an act of flexing is influence muscles to me. It may not be....granted. That's why I noted I may be playing a little over-dramatic as he often does.

[warbreaker]

Liked twice by the same person? As in "John Dehlin liked your picture twice"? I only see the blue disk that has a thumbs up symbol in it and next to it the phrase: "X likes a picture you shared," or "X likes a post you shared." Then I have to click on that notification. So she sees the likes, she clicks through all of them individually, and if I understand correctly there were many photos he liked, and somewhere along the way of clicking every last one of these she notices that he must have liked some of them twice because she is taken back to the same pictures again by these notification links.

Meh. OK?

So, if this happened all at once, and say John Dehlin were quickly liking a bunch of her photographs, I can see him accidentally hitting some twice, thereby unliking them, and then reliking them because he did, in fact, intend to like them. In that case, I am not seeing really emphatic creepiness in the form of secret messages intended to draw her attention.

I don't understand the fixation on the liking and unliking. Not enough information. If it was in quick succession, then yeah, he likely just double clicked. That said if it was over a period of hours or a couple days, I'd start getting weirded out that not only was he fixated on me for some reason, but he is communicating he was fixated on me. Again not enough information.

Bottom line, though: if the pics are actually "sexy pics," and I have no idea because I have not seen said pics, then John would be wise not to "like" pics such as these, regardless of what her point of view on this whole issue is.

I remember a close friend once recounted to me how he was at a park and walked by some ladies who were sunning out in public in very revealing bikinis. He happened to notice them, and he must have looked a moment too long because one of them commented to her friends, "What a creep!"

LOL!!!

How lovely.

I would tell you who this friend is, but I don't want anyone to think he is a monster that is undeserving of any stature in human civilization.

I get where you are coming from. I'm as male as the next guy. I have a hard time with the idea that someone dresses provocatively and then get mad at people merely noticing. We are all the sum of our biology at the end of the day and for most men that means we will notice attractive women. That said, this is beyond merely noticing. Assuming the woman is correct and only a certain type of image was liked (and I don't doubt it to be the case), it the equivalent of stopping to chat with the women in the park your friend saw and tell them they are attractive. Added on top of this, John is a married, the woman in question is married. John has a professional relationship with the woman in question. That makes it a bit creepy for me. Enough to hang JD? Nope. He's a human with strengths and weaknesses like the rest of us.

I get that a lot of people on this thread don't use Facebook a lot but JD admits he spends hours a day on social media. He knows this. Again my wife experiences this kind of attention all the time during social events when she attends various business conferences. At first she thought telling the men she was married would get them to cool their jets, but they only see it as a guarantee of secrecy if the other party was interested (as neither would want the respective spouse to find out). I have no doubt that if these men were confronted they would spin a tale like John Dehlin and say my wife misinterpreted their intentions and they are just friendly to everyone.

[Bought Yahoo]

That's a deflection of course. I say power play in this way: John apparently attempted to flirt with this lady by liking her pictures and re-liking. He knows he's married and she is. That's a feeler to see how she responds, it seems. It went poorly for him when he realized she wasn't going to miss the opportunity to say how, as he requested, an ex-momon man mistreated an ex-Mormon woman. He flew off the handle because she did as he requested, apparently, trying to play victim, intimidate her, or other such things....it all comes off as an act of flexing is influence muscles to me. It may not be....granted. That's why I noted I may be playing a little over-dramatic as he often does.

I think you're ghoulishly envious and obsessed with success. I never thought such people in the world existed but you're proof.

[Kishkumen]

I'm not putting the pieces together for you, is all I'm saying. It took me a minute to follow his clues and find her. I'm not sure it's doxxing per se anyway. It seems it'd have to include some sort of malicious intent.

Thank you for not putting the pieces together for me. I think it might be difficult to prove malicious intent.

People had followed his public activities to gauge whether he believes or not? I don't think that's in the realm of attacking him. But I agree, there was some unseemly activity by church members there. I don't know why that justifies his over-reaction or his flirting, though.

I am not saying it does "justify" pretty normal human reactions to things, which don't really need justification anyway. They hardly even merit mention, or, rather, they do not merit mention at all, except for those who are obsessed with the ins and outs of John Dehlin's seriocomic adventures in Post-Mormon Vanity Fair.

He's no victim. There was questionable activity. He should expect some sort of complaints if he has an affair, attacks a Church publicly, and seeks money from donors for helping people. You seem to be framing this all as he was just kindly sitting there minding his own business when out of nowhere people threw all sorts of stones and spears because he was so nice. No he's putting himself out there as someone who is saving people. He's publicly attacking an institution for it's treatment of it's adherents. He's admittedly silencing all of his dissenters. He's calling his critics names in response to criticism like "you've made me uncomfortable", painting them as crazy fools, evil conspirers, or jealous sychophants.

I don't think you are following me very well at all. Just sitting there? Please do me the kindness of remembering that I have been peripherally involved in this whole mess since about the year 2001. So, knock it off. Don't attribute ignorant BS to me when you know damned well that I am fully aware he was not "just sitting there." I am saying, now that I have to spell it out for YOU, that someone who is inclined to be paranoid might be freaked out by this stuff, whether it was really provocative to that degree or not.

You might have noticed that I said it was up to him to decide what to do if he couldn't stand the heat in his own kitchen.

That's a deflection of course.

No, it isn't "of course" just because you said "of course." Both of them are married. Why does this make it a powerplay? It is a powerplay because they are both married? Nah. A feeler? Possibly. But I have not even conceded that we know what these pictures look like and whether liking them would be unambiguously flirtatious, or that he reliked a few of them to make some kind of emphatic creepy point to her.

I don't join you in your unwarranted assumptions, and I don't think one friend liking the pictures of another friend on Facebook is a "powerplay."

He flew off the handle because she did as he requested, apparently, trying to play victim, intimidate her, or other such things....it all comes off as an act of flexing is influence muscles to me. It may not be....granted. That's why I noted I may be playing a little over-dramatic as he often does.

Yeah, OK. Flying off the handle in his social media crib can be called a powerplay. He says, "I am the dominant ape here, and you guys need to back off." Pretty weak, but still a weak wannabe dominant ape's powerplay.

We agree on that much. The rest not so much if at all.

[Maureen]

I'm late to this thread and haven't read everything but my opinion is that this woman that reacted to JD's "likes" on her Facebook page is over reacting. Does Facebook even notify you if someone "likes", then "unlikes" pictures or posts? I don't think it does. If she thinks that happened, then in my opinion, she's being paranoid. I can understand JD's response (not the length in the letter) but the overall confusion by someone thinking that "liking" something on Facebook is nefarious. His response might have been a little over the top, but I question this lady's over reaction to something as normal as "liking" things on Facebook.

M.